Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>I wonder why that C file which maps a more abstract Rust-friendly C-API on top of the existing API can't live inside the Rust directory and build structure.

That's what this patch does. It's what the patch _always_ did. Christoph seems not to have actually looked at the patch before rejecting it.

When it was pointed out to him that his initial complaints were in fact unfounded, he didn't say "oh well, I guess it's OK then", he came up with more unfounded reasons to reject it. And when those points were addressed, he basically said "nah, I don't want to".

I should note that he does not actually have any authority to reject the patches, since they're not in his subsystem. They are bindings to the DMA subsystem, he was CC'd as an advisory, but he has no more right to reject the patches than he would to reject a GPU driver that used DMA.

This is a waste of everyone's time.



> Christoph seems not to have actually looked at the patch before rejecting it.

I had the same impression as well, in particular due to his wording:

> "No rust code in kernel/dma, please"

When, in fact, the code is in "rust/kernel/dma" not "kernel/dma".

It seems like he missed this and then doubled down on his stance when questioned.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: